Appeal No. 2002-1139
Application No. 09/236,960
no need for a change in display orientation in Jambhekar. Similarly, if the flip-down
type of lid were employed in Uchikura, then the artisan would have recognized that
circuitry for controlling the orientation of the display in response to opening and closing
the lid, as taught by Jambhekar, would be desirable in a Uchikura device with a flip-
down lid because of the corresponding orientation of the display with respect to the
alphanumeric keyboard formed by keyboards 4 and 5 of Uchikura.
Accordingly, it is our view that the artisan viewing the totality of the teachings of
Jambhekar and Uchikura would have found the subject matter recited in instant
independent claims 1 and 10 obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we
will sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 and 10.
We decide otherwise with regard to the rejection of claims 7, 8 and 11-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jambhekar in view of Mäkelä.
Because Mäkelä discloses two separate displays, display 9 in Figure 2 in the
radiotelephone mode and display 12 in Figure 3 in the QWERTY keyboard mode, we
find that the artisan would have had no reason at all to employ the display orientation
circuitry of Jambhekar, for changing the orientation of a single display, in the device of
Mäkelä. Similarly, although Mäkelä discloses a QWERTY keyboard, we find nothing
that would have suggested the use of such a keyboard in Jambhekar, first, because the
QWERTY keyboard of Mäkelä is a single keyboard on a single panel and, second,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007